campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Anti-car movement
The anti-car movement's position is that the automobile and its associated infrastructure has gained too much dominance and that it is doing more harm than good to society. The majority of car opponents wish to see a reduction of car usage particularly in cities, while a minority of more fundamentalist people oppose car usage in general. =Who?= The anti-car movement is a diverse and fragmented crowd, but in scope and scale. Opinions vary, from those who want to ban cars completely to those who merely want to see a reduction in car use. Environmentalists The biggest group, environmentalists believe that cars consume unsustainable amounts of energy and land, that local pollution from cars is contributing to massive health problems, that global pollution from cars is causing climate change, and that cars make cities unsafe and unappealing. Socialists and anti-consumerists Some socialists see the automobile as a manifestation of class oppression, while anti-consumerists view the automobile as one of the biggest symbols of conspicuous consumption. Oppose the technology Some simply see cars as an inefficient and ill-designed technology, and think superior transport technologies are capable of replacing it. Alternative technologies to the car infrastructure include traditional public transport, human-powered vehicles, personal rapid transit, and arcologies. Oppose car culture George Monbiot, an anti-car activist, speculates that the car culture has contributed to a rise in selfish and incosiderate behaviour and increasing levels of isolation. Safety campaigners Sometimes victims or friends of victims of traffic accidents, but often people who feel threatened by dangerous driver, safety campaigners wish to impose safety measures such as traffic calming. =Arguments against cars in cities= Land use and capacity Cars require high land use and have low carrying capacity. Land in cities is a limited resouce, and there is demand for large numbers of journeys. Therefore, cities that encourage car use often suffer from congestion. High land requirements for roads and parking also mean that there is less land available for more other more benefitial uses such as parks. In some big cities up to 50% of the free space is devoted to the car, even if only a minority of residents use this means of transport. Pollution Reducing pollution by reducing the number of vehicles on the road is seen as the only solution by many. Air Pollution Internal combustion emit nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter (soot). These can cause severe health problems, such as lung damage, asthma, and cancer. Measures against pollution such as catalytic converters have improved the situation dramatically, but they are never 100% effective, and the sheer number of cars means that today most big cities suffer from periods of serious air pollution. Noise Pollution Apart from incovenience and loss of quality of life, noise pollution from car traffic can cause health problems such as insomnia and depression. The chronic nature of noise pollution from traffic makes it particularly hazardous Urban sprawl Urban sprawl is characterised by low density development, a decentralisation of services, a segregation and homogenisation of land use, and wide, high-capacity roads designed for car traffic. Aesthetics Urban sprawl blights the landscape with unsightly car parks, strip malls, and fast food restaurants. Residential areas become soulless monocultures with no feel of community or history. The distinction between town and country is lost. The lack of clear town centers adds to a sense of isolation and alienation. Social Problems Urban sprawl discourages mixing of different socioeconomic classes or cultures and can lead to ghettoisation. The long distances between work, shopping, and leisure mean that people are discouraged from walking and spend a lot of time in the car, which has contributed to obesety Safety In urban environments, large numbers of pedestrians must share the same space with cars. Drivers routinely accelerate to 30-40 mph in crowded urban areas, even though the average speed of a cars in cities is around 5-10 mph. This creates a hazards for pedestrians and turns cities into threatening, unappaeling environments. =Counter-arguments= =Arguments for cars in cities= Business&Economy Some types of journey are only possible by car. Some businesses need motor vehicles to deliver services or goods. Those journeys are vital for a healthy economy. Emergencies Disabled travellers =Counter-arguments= Business&Economy The number of journeys that require individual motorised transport is small. The vast majority of car traffic is made up of single occupancy commuters with little or no baggage. This part of the population could easily switch to public transport or bicycle and the economy would feel no effect. A city that is designed to be car light rather than car-free would still allow the essential motorised traffic, but it would discourage commuters from using cars. Worldwide, there are several examples of areas that have thiving economies even though only a minority of residents travel by car: Manhattan, Tokyo, Hong Kong, central London, Amsterdam. =Arguments against cars and car infrastructure in general= High cost According to the RAC the average cost of running a new car in the UK is GBP 5,000 (US$ 9,000) per year, or roughly 1/3 of the average net wage, a situation reflected in most other Western nations. Nevertheless demand for automobiles remains high and inelasic, suggesting that cheaper alternatives are not readily available to the public. High consumption of land High consumption of oil =Counter-arguments= =Arguments for cars and car infrastructure in general= Freedom of choice The majority has chosen the car as the favoured means of transportation Economic growth =Counter-arguments= Freedom of choice Addiction Reliance on cars is addictive. Most people are not aware that other viable alternatives exist. Critical Mass Cars only became commonplace after massive promotion by the government (highway building, subsidies of car manufacture, car-friendly city planning), at a time when a car was still a luxuty item. The car was not chosen by a majority to begin with. Empirical evidence: The Netherlands is one of the few Western governments that has promoted other alternatives than the car enthusiastically, in particular cycling. Only 1/3 of people in the Netherlands have chosen to commute by car. 1/3 have chosen to commute by bicycle. Collective Prisoner's dillemma problem Because most of our infrastructure is designed for cars, people don't have a real choice not to use one. People who choose to go carfree are heavily penalised. =Anti-car issues= Carpooling Congestion charge Urban sprawl Cycling facities Bus lanes Subsidised public transport Category:Transportation = What's YOUR perspective? = * I am 28 and have never felt the need to own a car in my life. I'm not a hippie. I simply think that for my purposes a car is an inferior and unnecessary technology, and it's more of a hindrance than benefit. Initially, I lived without a car because I was forced to. Once I got used to the car-free life and enjoyed it, I chose to stay that way. I travel to most places by bike and train, or a combination of the two, and I'm normally faster than my motorised friends! I have nothing against people who love cars, and I don't want to spoil their fun. But what bothers me is that if you have no car, you are treated as a second-class citizen by the government. People who drive everywhere never realise just how discriminatory government policies are against non-car users, from accident legislation to street design. We are given no real choice. What also bothers me is that many people assume that I'm some sort of extremist simply because I ride a bike and think that this is an excuse to treat me with disrespect or even violence. Klafubra 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)